http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
Though the vast majority of Americans haven't a clue as to how dangerous or
pervasive the phenomenon is, it is hardly a secret that many media outlets
routinely alter programming and content based on the interests of either
their corporate parent company or their own particular agenda. Even new
organizations (some of which I have worked for) often fall prey to the
temptation of putting corporate interests above the public's right to know.

Sometimes such censorship is relatively harmless (such as the numerous
situations in which a corporation owns both a sports team and the media
outlet that covers them), but with increasing and frightening regularity
information is being withheld from the public purely because some "suit" is
going to be made to feel uncomfortable.

In just the last week, there have been two, relatively ignored, examples of
corporate censorship that have seemingly set new standards for outrageous
media behavior (if that is even possible in the age of Larry King and Katie
Couric).

The more prominent of the two cases involves country singer Toby Keith being
booted off of ABC-TV's 4th of July music special. Keith claims that he was
told that ABC anchorman Peter Jennings did not feel that his performance
would be appropriate for the festivities and had him unbooked for the show.

Keith was scheduled to sing his new hit song "Courtesy of the Red, White and
Blue (The Angry American)," which has been called "controversial" because it
uses the word "a--" and because it seems to celebrate American retaliation
for the September 11th attacks. Just in case you think I might be putting a
positive spin on the song's lyrics, here are the allegedly offensive stanzas:

Now this nation that I love is fallin' under attack.
A mighty sucker-punch came flying in from somewhere in the back.
Soon as we could see clearly through our big black eye,
Man, we lit up your world like the fourth of July.

Hey, Uncle Sam put your name at the top of his list,
And the Statue of Liberty started shaking her fist.
And the eagle will fly and it's gonna be hell,
When you hear Mother Freedom start ringing her bell.
And it'll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you.
Ah, brought to you, courtesy of the red, white and blue.

Oh, justice will be served and the battle will rage:
This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage.
An' you'll be sorry that you messed with the U.S. of A.
'Cos we'll put a boot in you're a--, it's the American way.

If, only nine months after what we all experienced on 9/11, those words are
inappropriate to be sung on the AMERICAN Broadcasting Network, then we are
all in a LOT more trouble than even a pessimist like myself had previously
believed.

The absurdity and the irony of a Canadian like Jennings making the call to
ditch the song was not lost on Keith. "I find it interesting that he's not
from the U.S. I bet Dan Rather'd let me do it on his special." (Note to Toby:
Have you SEEN Dan Rather's broadcast lately?!)

ABC is desperately trying to sell the notion that Keith's portion of the
holiday special was canceled for logistical reasons. However, it seems to me
that Keith's charges ring true (partially because a mutual friend tells me he
is as straight a shooter as there is). If so, the fact that a liberal news
anchor from a foreign country can keep a patriotic song off the ABC airwaves
during an Independence Day special is truly disturbing and worthy of far more
note than it has currently received.

Speaking of outrages receiving very little publicity, the other recent
example of corporate censorship has received even less news coverage than the
Keith/Jennings flap.

That situation deals with CBS, despite being offered cold hard cash, refusing
to air a TV commercial from discount stockbroker Charles Schwab. Now, for a
TV network to turn down good money to run an ad in a soft advertising market
is about as common as Tiger Woods blowing a final round lead. It almost never
happens and when it does there are usually extremely unusual circumstances
surrounding the event. However, this is not the case with the Charles Schwab
commercial.

The ad in question didn't get shelved for using inappropriate language or
video. It didn't make any claims about the product that are in question. It
didn't even offend a particular social group or break any of the rules of
political correctness. What the commercial did do is, in a humorous,
effective and subtle way, make light of the recent scandal involving
competitor Merrill Lynch, who was forced to pay a $100 million fine for
conflict-of-interest allegations by the New York State Attorney.

In the rejected ad, a sales manager is getting his troops ready for the work
day by saying, "OK, kids, here's today's magic stock. We've got big
incentives on this one, so get on the phones-we've got a lot of stock to
move: Don't mention the fundamentals, they stink. Now let's put some lipstick
on this pig!"

CBS has justified dumping the imaginative and brutally honest ad by claiming
that, even though Merrill Lynch is not mentioned, the "pig" reference
implicitly impugns the ethics of Merrill Lynch (yeah, and?) because the term
was used in the "smoking gun" e-mail between Merrill analysts. Apparently it
is just a mere coincidence that Merrill Lynch is a major advertiser on CBS
and spends over twice as much per year on TV advertising as Charles Schwab
does.

So let me get this straight: A company can get caught in the most heinous
type of conflict of interest scandal one can imagine, pay a relatively tiny
fine that is apparently tax deductible, and then, when a competitor tries to
point out those facts in an innocent and perfectly legal manner, spike their
competitor's ads simply because they spend more money (which they earned by
ripping off customers) on advertising with a network that doesn't seem to
mind conflicts of interest?!!

This is clearly an injustice that requires an investigation from the most
esteemed journalistic body in the history of television (no, not "Inside
Edition"), "60 Minutes." There is just one problem. Not only is "60 Minutes"
owned and operated by CBS, it was also supposed to be the very show on which
the Charles Schwab ad was intended to run.

06/04/02: The absurdity of "punditry"05/14/02: Did she think I meant "h--ker"?04/30/02: An End To An Endless Story? Why I will never say 'the n-word' aloud again04/16/02: Congresswoman claims on-air that prez knew about 9-11 in advance and nobody seems to care!?04/02/02: Calling All White Males03/26/02: The Juice is Loose, Again03/19/02: Why is Monica not in jail?03/12/02: Sir Charles is Royally Wrong03/05/02: If a Tree Falls in the Forest … ?02/26/02: Where have you gone Gary Hart?02/20/02: Conflicts in the Media? This is News? 02/12/02: The "Toll Booth" on the "Relationship Highway"02/05/02: Ban sticks, not flags01/29/02: 646,000 citizens and one vote01/22/02: What The Gay TV Channel REALLY Means01/14/02: Zahn's Too Sexy For Her Promo? A former "anchorperson" comes clean01/08/02: Will someone please admit that not much has changed?01/02/02: The Eternal Flame of Silliness12/26/01: The value of a life12/18/01: The Lost Truth of the bin Laden Tape12/11/01: Biased about Bias12/05/01: Is it what you do, or what you believe?11/27/01: What if Then Was Now?11/21/01: I Swear It ain't me  I Think11/13/01: Racial baiting and bias hasn't changed a bit11/09/01: TV networks show their true colors10/30/01: Proposed programming for the "Fear Channel"10/30/01: The Tide is Turning10/22/01: Narcissism is at the heart of Anthrax overreaction10/16/01: Let's not overestimate these terrorists10/08/01: Despite what the media says, ethnic profiling is worth it10/05/01:What if Osama just gave himself up?09/24/01: Lessons learned --- or, ones that should be09/17/01: The silver lining in our darkest cloud09/04/01: "BREAKING NEWS" Not What It Used To Be08/27/01: Some guys have it --- and some just don't08/20/01:"Hollywood in Crisis" --- Please no Sequel! 08/13/0: Misplaced media fan-aticism about football tragedies The Rules of the 'N-Word'